Point of Law: In absence of any such express provision, framing of rules cannot be a condition precedent for exercise of power under the Statute. The Principle Act clearly contemplates a procedure and there would be no impediment for the authority to follow the existing procedure, more particularly when the petitioners are seeking vote of 'No-confidence' and a requisition is sent to the authority calling upon them to fix the special meeting in this regard. The process of 'No-confidence' cannot be postponed and the same is impermissible in law. The impugned communication issued by respondent No.1 at Annexures-A and B are one without jurisdiction and authority.

ORDER :

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.

1. The captioned writ petitions are filed seeking writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter/communication dated 16.05.2020 bearing No. (Vernacular matter omitted... Ed.) 138 (Vernacular matter omitted... Ed.) 2020 issued by the respondent No. 1 as per Annexure-A and consequently, letter/ communication dated 20.05.2020 bearing No. (Vernacular matter omitted... Ed.) 2020-21 issued by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B. The petitioners are also seeking writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to hold a special meeting for 'No- Confidence Motion' moved by the petitioners against the respondent No.4.

2. The facts leading to the top noted writ petitions are as under:

The petitioners are the elected members of the Zilla Panchayath, Koppal. The petitioners have contended in the writ petition that in the elections conducted on 20.02.2016, the Indian National Congress won 17 seats whereas, the Bharatiya Janata Party won 11 seats and one seat went to an independent candidate. As per the reservation policies, the post of President of the Zilla Panchayath was reserved in favour of general candidate and accordingly, elections for the post of President, Vice-President of Zilla Panchayath was held on 30.04.2016 and one Mr. Nagarahalli was elected as President. The said person tendered resignation to the post of President on 14.06.2017 and on account of vacancy, elections were again conducted on 17.07.2017 and one K.Rajshekhar Basavaraj Hittnal was elected as President. The said person also tendered resignation on 26.10.2018. In view of vacancy, fresh election was conducted on 28.12.2018. In the said elections, the respondent No.4 was elected as President and till today, the respondent No.4 is holding the post of President.

3. The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that the respondent No.4 has failed to take confidence of members of Zilla Panchayath and is acting in arbitrariness. The respondent No.4 has also failed to undertake any progressive work in the development of Zilla Panchayath. This compelled the petitioners to convey their views to the respondent No.4 and a request was made to change his approach in functioning as a President of Zilla Panchayath. The petitioners contended at para 3 of the writ petition that the respondent No.4 is not in a mood to heed to the request of the petitioners and in this background, it appears the petitioners decided to move 'No- confidence motion' against the respondent No.4 and accordingly, notice was sent to respondent No.4 on 18.05.2020 requesting him to call for a special meeting to consider the 'No-confidence motion' against the respondent No.4. The petitioners went to the chambers of the President to give notice personally and the respondent No.4 refused to receive the notice of 'No-confidence motion'. This compelled the petitioners to resolve to initiate 'No-confidence motion' and accordingly, a resolution also came to be passed on 11.05.2020. The copy of resolution dated 11.05.2020 and notice dated 18.05.2019 are produced and marked as Annexures -F and G. The petitioners also submitted the said notice by post to the office of the respondent No.4 and personal assistant of respondent No.4 has received the notice and has given acknowledgment for having received the notice. The petitioners also contended that the said notice is sent through E-mail, speed post and courier to respondent No.4 and copy of the said notice is also forwarded to respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. The petitioners have specifically contended in the writ petition that since respondent No.4 failed to call for a special meeting as per the mandate of Section 180 of the Act, the petitioners decided to call for special meeting to hold 'No-confidence motion' against the respondent No.4 as per the procedure contemplated under Section 180(2)(a) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') and also requested the Chief Executive